The looming GOP civil war -- whether Mitt wins or not

WEST CHESTER, Ohio — Mitt Romney’s boisterous rally here Friday night featured both the promise of the Republican Party’s future and a sharp reminder of why the GOP may lose its second consecutive presidential race on Tuesday.

The scene in this Cincinnati suburb also set the stage for the party’s coming inner struggle to define itself no matter this cycle’s outcome.

Text Size

-

+

reset

If Romney loses, who's to blame?

POLITICO series: Best 2012 ads

A cadre of young and diverse Republican officials took the stage to speak before Romney. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte each made the case for their nominee and offered a reminder of the strength of the GOP’s bench.

But they did so before a crowd that was nearly all-white and their appearances were sandwiched in between slashing speeches from a familiar roster of older white males like Rudy Giuliani, who took it upon himself to demand that President Barack Obama resign over the Benghazi attacks.

Regardless of whether Romney wins or loses, Republicans must move to confront its demographic crisis. The GOP coalition is undergirded by a shrinking population of older white conservative men from the countryside, while the Democrats rely on an ascendant bloc of minorities, moderate women and culturally tolerant young voters in cities and suburbs. This is why, in every election, since 1992, Democrats have either won the White House or fallen a single state short of the presidency.

“If we lose this election there is only one explanation — demographics,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

But Republicans are divided on the way forward. Its base is growing more conservative, nominating and at times electing purists while the country is becoming more center than center-right. Practical-minded party elites want to pass a comprehensive immigration bill, de-emphasize issues like contraception and abortion and move on a major taxes-and-spending deal that includes some method of raising new revenue.

But many rank-and-file Republicans in Congress and grass-roots activists won’t sanction amnesty for undocumented immigrants, are determined to advance restrictions on abortion and have no appetite for any compromise with Democrats on fiscal issues. And that doesn’t even get at the growing cleavage on foreign policy in the GOP between the party’s hawkish wing and the rising voices who prefer a more restrained role abroad.

There’s not much of a moderate wing left in the GOP, but the pragmatism versus purity battle that looms on the horizon could be as fierce as Republicans have seen since the Goldwaterites sought to wrest control of the party in the 1960s.

Now, as then, the establishment is made up mostly of older pragmatists, such as Romney, House Speaker John Boehner and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. And it’s the younger “Red Dawn Republicans,” like Jindal and likely Texas senator to-be Ted Cruz, who are the true believers.

Yes, Abe Lincoln was the first Republican president. But that was back when the REPUBLICANS were the liberals. Today, a tolerant, intellectual, broad-minded spirit like Lincoln couldn't win a race for dog-catcher in the GOP.

For the conspiratorial among us its almost as if the Tea party is a sinister plot by the Democratic Party to influence Republicans that their representatives aren't conservative enough thus eventually replacing them with Democrats. Thus through a series of primaries they are able to rid the Republican party of effective Senators like Dick Lugar all the while mischievously getting the public to accept bat**** crazy nutcases like Mourdock which end up losing in the general election; this fiendish plot has effectively worked in states like Delaware, Nevada, Colorado and most likely will end up working in Indiana and Missouri. hp

Abraham Lincoln was the 1st Republican president. Abraham Lincoln freed the Blacks from slavery at the end of the Civil War.

--------------------------------------------------

With the stellar exception of progressive Teddy Roosevelt, that pretty much sums anything good about Republican Party.

"Diversity Not" should be the new motto.

Just take a look at ANY Romney rally today - a sea of bald old white men (gosh, I'm one of them except for party affiliation) as far as the eye can see. Come to think of it, your party gladly accepted all of our Dixiecrats years go. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Thank you Angel Eyez for providing yet another resounding reason why President Obama will prevail this Tuesday.

Angeleyez -"Abraham Lincoln was the 1st Republican president. Abraham Lincoln freed the Blacks from slavery at the end of the Civil War."------ Good for you Angel now if you can tell me who Everett Dirksen is and what he contributed I'll be really impressed.

“If we lose this election there is only one explanation - demographics,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

Wrong. That's not the problem.

The GOP has self imposed blindness. They do not want to see the truth that their failed economic policies of the last sixty years are finally catching up to them.

Mitch McConnell fought hard to get all copies of a report from the Congressional Research Service destroyed. It is entitled, "Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945".

It is a flaming indictment against the GOP economic policies and trickle down economics when it says:

"Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession."

That is where the GOP is losing power. People know about it now. Everyone knows. And everyone who is not a die hard supporter of this fantasy hates it.

Romney is all inclusive in his words and actions. It is OBAMA who is the divider-in-chief. Making fun of white people is a constant theme of the Obama campaign and liberal progressive types who panders to the non-productive. Yes, who are the Obama supporters....the welfare recipients, the food-stampers, the felons, the "I am a victim" minorities, the Obama-free-phoners, the illegal alien lovers, the disability collectors and those that believe in spreading the earnings of others to their pet projects.....basically the LOSERS. So, those of us that want to reward success and believe in American opportunity (not handouts or affirmitive action for the less-qualified), we don't want to be part of the LOSER party....It has nothing to do with race...that just happens to be the reality of the current demographics. Everyone I know does not want to be affiliated with the Party (Democratic) of LOSERS...and by the way, I am NOT a bald old white guy.

Loved the 2 GOP strategists lines. We wanted the teabaggers in the bus but NOT driving the bus. Well stuff your party full of diranged fanatics and its just a matter of time before the club you over the head and take the bus.

2ND- We are in a demographic boa constricter and it get tighter every single election.

Ya. Mitts a loser and Obama will pack the courts and the party of bitter old wht men. Will be a taliban religous end times fanatics, party.

AngelEyes - The fact.you have to go back nearly 150 years to find a decent Republican accomplishment should tell you something. You list yourself as an independent. Most Repubs are ashamed to admit it in mixd (not all white and mostly old) company.

You absolutely correct! Mitt, is indeed, all inclusive: Mitt is for, against and have not opinion on a specific position. See, all inclusive. Mitt President!!!!! The flock is fliking---flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop!

There is no basis for your assertion that Mitt Romney is a pragmatist. He's promoted himself as "severely conservative" and has taken highly conservative positions -- on abortion, taxes, health care, the role of government, Iran, etc. True, he has also taken more moderate positions on each of those issues. Which is why there is no basis for saying he's one and not the other. He is unknown and unknowable.